Save RealJock: How SOPA would shut down RealJock

Liberally posting the breakdown from a tech site - Tom's Hardware (one of the leading sites for computer hardware reviews). Replace Tom's Hardware with RealJock and this is why this piece of legislation directly threatens RealJock through its forums and user generated profiles.

We all know that there are those in the world who hate us for who we are - this would just give them the legal tools to shut down a site we love or have it and presumably its founders relocate elsewhere. If you are American and you like sites like YouTube and RealJock - contact your representative.

SOPA threatens to fundamentally change the way information is presented online by placing massive restrictions on user-generated content like posts to forums, video uploads, podcasts or images. In a nutshell, here’s what the law would do:

Assign liability to site owners for everything users post, without consideration for whether or not the user posted without permission. Site owners could face jail time or heavy fines, and DNS blacklisting.

It would require web services like YouTube, Facebook, and Twitter to monitor and aggressively filter everything all users upload.It would deny site owners due process of law, by initiating a DNS blacklisting based solely on a good faith assertion by an individual copyright or intellectual property owner.

It would give the U.S. government the power to selectively censor the web using techniques similar to those used in China, Malaysia and Iran. The Great Firewall of China is an example of this type of embedded, infrastructural internet censorship.

As an example, imagine a user posts a video clip to the Tom’s Community of a step-by-step guide on how to set up water cooling on an overclocked i7 CPU. Playing in the background behind the voiceover is “Derezzed” by Daft Punk. The studio representing Daft Punk could issue a complaint, without being required to notify us or request a take-down. Tom’s Hardware would be liable and prosecuted solely on a good faith assertion of the copyright owner, without notification, with the site operators subject to possible jail time for not preventing the video from being posted. In short order, the http://www.tomshardware.com/ domain in the United States would no longer resolve to our servers and visitors attempting to come to Tom’s Hardware would be redirected to a “This site under review for piracy/copyright violations” page.

To conform to these new restrictions would mean that Tom’s Hardware would have to switch to a review/approval process for any and all new posts to our forums and articles. Our community team would have to approve every single news comment, every new thread, and every new response before it went live and filter them for potentially infringing material. Even so, we would still possibly be under threat from violations not caught – a user posting a paragraph from “Unix for Dummies” as an example or a snippet of software news from another website in excess of a certain summary threshold. That’s just here on Tom’s. The effect on sites like YouTube, Google, Facebook, Twitter, Reddit and the rest of the internet would be devastating, and progress and innovation would grind to a halt under the cumbersome new restrictions.

The intent of the legislation is to stop piracy, which isn’t affected in the least by this approach. The DNS censoring method is circumvented by navigating to the IP directly, and many have already installed Anti-SOPA browser extensions that do this automatically. Unfortunately the legislation in the House and Senate has a wide margin of bi-partisan support and looks likely to pass after the holidays. We strongly oppose the censorship of the internet and strongly encourage you to contact your Congressional Representatives and Senators to voice your opposition. Believe it or not, your Congress-critters do count the number of calls and emails they get on a particular issue, and most of the time only the people in their jurisdiction (read- you) can sway their opinion on something – so your action on this is important.

Please take a moment to contact your representative and tell them you oppose the PROTECT IP Act in the Senate and the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) in the House. Here’s a link that can give you more information and provide you with contact info for your elected official. Your action on this matters.

The Internet's most popular destinations, including eBay, Google, Facebook, and Twitter seem to view Hollywood-backed copyright legislation as an existential threat.

It was Google co-founder Sergey Brin who warned that the Stop Online Piracy Act and the Protect IP Act "would put us on a par with the most oppressive nations in the world." Craigslist founder Craig Newmark, Twitter co-founders Jack Dorsey and Biz Stone, and LinkedIn co-founder Reid Hoffman argue that the bills give the Feds unacceptable "power to censor the Web."But these companies have yet to roll out the heavy artillery.

When the home pages of Google.com, Amazon.com, Facebook.com, and their Internet allies simultaneously turn black with anti-censorship warnings that ask users to contact politicians about a vote in the U.S. Congress the next day on SOPA, you'll know they're finally serious.

Yeah, SOPA is one of those pieces of legislation that make Congress less popular than the Taliban. Seriously, the whole thing is a total mess, and the fact it's even being considered is reason to doubt anyone in Congress has ever used a computer or the Internet.

It's a testament to the idiocy of the governing class that this bill is co-sponsored from both sides of the aisle. Currently a full 32 members support this thing, and I hope not one of them gains reelection next year.

What is it with some of you who feel the Internet should be free for all, and that anything you post should be protected from legal action?

There are far too many incidents where some sociopaths have started up web sites, stolen information from others only to claim it as their own, then hide behind the First Amendment.

Piracy/IP theft, copyright infringement, invasion of privacy (e.g., posting nude pictures of your ex-b/f) are all major issues. I'm not pro-SOPA, but I'm not against it, either. I'm guessing it will settle somewhere in the middle.

credo saidPiracy/IP theft, copyright infringement, invasion of privacy (e.g., posting nude pictures of your ex-b/f) are all major issues. I'm not pro-SOPA, but I'm not against it, either. I'm guessing it will settle somewhere in the middle.

credo saidWhat is it with some of you who feel the Internet should be free for all, and that anything you post should be protected from legal action?

There are far too many incidents where some sociopaths have started up web sites, stolen information from others only to claim it as their own, then hide behind the First Amendment.

Piracy/IP theft, copyright infringement, invasion of privacy (e.g., posting nude pictures of your ex-b/f) are all major issues. I'm not pro-SOPA, but I'm not against it, either. I'm guessing it will settle somewhere in the middle.

SOPA restricts actions that aren't infringements upon any of the areas you have mentioned. Things that are not even arguably offensive. You sound pretty pro-SOPA

credo saidWhat is it with some of you who feel the Internet should be free for all, and that anything you post should be protected from legal action?

There are far too many incidents where some sociopaths have started up web sites, stolen information from others only to claim it as their own, then hide behind the First Amendment.

Piracy/IP theft, copyright infringement, invasion of privacy (e.g., posting nude pictures of your ex-b/f) are all major issues. I'm not pro-SOPA, but I'm not against it, either. I'm guessing it will settle somewhere in the middle.

SOPA restricts actions that aren't infringements upon any of the areas you have mentioned. Things that are not even arguably offensive. You sound pretty pro-SOPA

What? SOPA was designed as a means to limit piracy and copyright infringement. Are you saying piracy and copyright infringement aren't offensive to you? Good for you, but they're offensive to most businesses both on and off the Internet.

Do I think our laws should catch up to the Internet? Absolutely. Am I pro-SOPA? No way; at least, not in its current form. As it is currently written, SOPA is flawed.

yourname2000 saidCopyright has gone too far. It used to be you had only 15 years....Disney worked to have this gradually increased until, what, 75 years after DEATH of the creator? It's absurd. A 8yo girl writing about her summer vacation with Mickey Mouse at Disneyland is technically breaching copyright law. That's not right....corporations have effectively patented the colour blue and would charge everyone for its use. Aside from creating wealth NOT from productivity but from litigation, it stifles creativity and innovation.

Balance is needed, but the degree of IP theft is an indication that the current system (favouring content creators to the extreme, on paper at least) is unworkable. When I think of how many times I've paid for access to the same content, it's laughable (almost like Tommy Lee Jones' line in Men In Black about how the new micro-disc format would just mean that he would end up buying the White Album again.) Look at the growth in people's expenditure on licensed content over the last 100 years....we're paying for ether....again and again and again. The cow has been milked....there's nothing left. (And America can't sue its citizens to renew its greatness....it's not production...just a snake eating itself.)

you seem to be focused entirely on the distributors, and ignore completely the right of the creators of the material to earnings. That is piracy and theft.

As a person who owns copyright in certain properties I do not think I should lose the earnings that go from it just because the techonology exists to allow them to replicate my work for personal use or profit.

Upper_Cdn saidyou seem to be focused entirely on the distributors, and ignore completely the right of the creators of the material to earnings. That is piracy and theft.

As a person who owns copyright in certain properties I do not think I should lose the earnings that go from it just because the techonology exists to allow them to replicate my work for personal use or profit.

As a rightsholder, though, do you feel that you should have the right to destroy an entire site - even things that don't relate to your works in any way - just because of one violation of your rights?

The current law says no; you only have the right to insist upon removal of things which specifically violate your copyright. A useful example of this would be a video on YouTube which uses part of a copyrighted song: the rightsholder can only have that one video removed from the site. In a sense, current law gives rightsholders a scalpel, which allows for the careful excision of pirated material while leaving non-pirated material intact.

SOPA, on the other hand, means you could insist that all ISPs in the United States remove access to a site just because you *claim* it contains infringement. (Even if nothing actually infringes.) Using the YouTube example above, the rightsholder could stop all access to YouTube in the US just because one video out of millions violates their copyright. If current law is a scalpel, then SOPA is a hatchet, removing good and bad alike and making a giant mess in the process.

Finally, as the OP implies, there's a whole new world of trolling that opens up because of SOPA. All I have to do to end any Web site I don't like is to join, then upload something that infringes on someone else's copyright, or claim that it infringes upon mine. (I've done a lot of work on Wikipedia content, and if you don't comply with the CC-BY-SA or GFDL license terms then you're infringing.) If SOPA passes, then RJ could cease to exist, along with all other US-focused forums, wikis, and user communities, and many international sites with user-generated content (including Facebook, YouTube, and Wikipedia) would be severely crippled.

Upper_Cdn saidyou seem to be focused entirely on the distributors, and ignore completely the right of the creators of the material to earnings. That is piracy and theft.

As a person who owns copyright in certain properties I do not think I should lose the earnings that go from it just because the techonology exists to allow them to replicate my work for personal use or profit.

As a rightsholder, though, do you feel that you should have the right to destroy an entire site - even things that don't relate to your works in any way - just because of one violation of your rights?

The current law says no; you only have the right to insist upon removal of things which specifically violate your copyright. A useful example of this would be a video on YouTube which uses part of a copyrighted song: the rightsholder can only have that one video removed from the site. In a sense, current law gives rightsholders a scalpel, which allows for the careful excision of pirated material while leaving non-pirated material intact.

SOPA, on the other hand, means you could insist that all ISPs in the United States remove access to a site just because you *claim* it contains infringement. (Even if nothing actually infringes.) Using the YouTube example above, the rightsholder could stop all access to YouTube in the US just because one video out of millions violates their copyright. If current law is a scalpel, then SOPA is a hatchet, removing good and bad alike and making a giant mess in the process.

Finally, as the OP implies, there's a whole new world of trolling that opens up because of SOPA. All I have to do to end any Web site I don't like is to join, then upload something that infringes on someone else's copyright, or claim that it infringes upon mine. (I've done a lot of work on Wikipedia content, and if you don't comply with the CC-BY-SA or GFDL license terms then you're infringing.) If SOPA passes, then RJ could cease to exist, along with all other US-focused forums, wikis, and user communities, and many international sites with user-generated content (including Facebook, YouTube, and Wikipedia) would be severely crippled.

but it would not be MY act that causes the site to be shut down.

It's her fault i hit her. She shouldn't have made me mad.

If RJ gets shut down because admin lets people post copyrighted material on it then that is the cost of noncompliance with the business requirements.

If admin wants to continue its revenue stream, it must do its part in proper use.

net users get very upset at the prospect of being held responsible for their words and acts.

Upper_Cdn saidyou seem to be focused entirely on the distributors, and ignore completely the right of the creators of the material to earnings. That is piracy and theft.

As a person who owns copyright in certain properties I do not think I should lose the earnings that go from it just because the techonology exists to allow them to replicate my work for personal use or profit.

As a rightsholder, though, do you feel that you should have the right to destroy an entire site - even things that don't relate to your works in any way - just because of one violation of your rights?

The current law says no; you only have the right to insist upon removal of things which specifically violate your copyright. A useful example of this would be a video on YouTube which uses part of a copyrighted song: the rightsholder can only have that one video removed from the site. In a sense, current law gives rightsholders a scalpel, which allows for the careful excision of pirated material while leaving non-pirated material intact.

SOPA, on the other hand, means you could insist that all ISPs in the United States remove access to a site just because you *claim* it contains infringement. (Even if nothing actually infringes.) Using the YouTube example above, the rightsholder could stop all access to YouTube in the US just because one video out of millions violates their copyright. If current law is a scalpel, then SOPA is a hatchet, removing good and bad alike and making a giant mess in the process.

Finally, as the OP implies, there's a whole new world of trolling that opens up because of SOPA. All I have to do to end any Web site I don't like is to join, then upload something that infringes on someone else's copyright, or claim that it infringes upon mine. (I've done a lot of work on Wikipedia content, and if you don't comply with the CC-BY-SA or GFDL license terms then you're infringing.) If SOPA passes, then RJ could cease to exist, along with all other US-focused forums, wikis, and user communities, and many international sites with user-generated content (including Facebook, YouTube, and Wikipedia) would be severely crippled.

but it would not be MY act that causes the site to be shut down.

It's her fault i hit her. She shouldn't have made me mad.

If RJ gets shut down because admin lets people post copyrighted material on it then that is the cost of noncompliance with the business requirements.

If admin wants to continue its revenue stream, it must do its part in proper use.

net users get very upset at the prospect of being held responsible for their words and acts.

I don't get upset at the prospect of being held responsible for my own words and actions. I get very upset at the prospect of being held responsible for somebody else's words and actions.

If enacted, SOPA would cause entire sites to go offline, taking down legitimate, non-infringing copyrighted materials as well as the infringing stuff. (Also, it's worth mentioning that, based on my Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons experience, few infringers know that they're infringing; copyright law is extremely complicated, and many people who upload things don't realize that they're violating someone else's rights.) This would have a sharply detrimental effect on content creators who are playing by the rules: no matter how diligently you may be about keeping your stuff clear of infringements, you will be punished inadvertently if someone else posts copyrighted material on a site you also use.

SOPA would also gut "fair use", which permits (for instance) film professors to air brief clips for class discussion or art critics to reprint a painting while discussing a gallery show, and it would severely restrict parody and satire.

As for forums like RJ, or wikis like Wikipedia - if SOPA passes, EVERY. SINGLE. POST. would need to be reviewed for copyright compliance before it could make it to the live site. That would dramatically slow down updates and discussion, and the additional staff required would completely drain a site's financial resources. (Wikipedia, for what it's worth, is operated by a non-profit on a shoestring budget.) On top of that, should a site err and get itself blacklisted, then the only remedy SOPA offers is litigation - even if the claimed violation turns out to be spurious or frivolous.

^^^ exactly what he said. This is an important issue and I don't think people will realize how detrimental it could be until too late. Thats why I'm commenting again to keep this thread alive.

For example, every time you guys post a pic in a forum, thats somebody's copyrighted material and without expressed consent could be infringing their rights. I know its done with no malice, no intent for financial gain but if SOPA passes it could be grounds to get this website shut down instantly w/out warning.

I hate to say it but this piece of "censorship" that people are worried about seems to be a bit hard to enforce in the long run. Do you know how many people would be needed in order to enforce something like this? Not to mention any and all sort of court proceedings that would stem from this. This crap would be clogged up in the courts for decades.

while something needs to be done to address Intellectual property abuses the idea that you can regulate the internet is beyond naive. The law makers need to sit down and think very hard. They should make very limited laws which go after very specific things and leave it a while to let things settle down. It´s a new medium, it cannot be policed in the old way

yourname2000 saidCopyright has gone too far. It used to be you had only 15 years....Disney worked to have this gradually increased until, what, 75 years after DEATH of the creator? It's absurd. A 8yo girl writing about her summer vacation with Mickey Mouse at Disneyland is technically breaching copyright law. That's not right....corporations have effectively patented the colour blue and would charge everyone for its use. Aside from creating wealth NOT from productivity but from litigation, it stifles creativity and innovation.

Balance is needed, but the degree of IP theft is an indication that the current system (favouring content creators to the extreme, on paper at least) is unworkable. When I think of how many times I've paid for access to the same content, it's laughable (almost like Tommy Lee Jones' line in Men In Black about how the new micro-disc format would just mean that he would end up buying the White Album again.) Look at the growth in people's expenditure on licensed content over the last 100 years....we're paying for ether....again and again and again. The cow has been milked....there's nothing left. (And America can't sue its citizens to renew its greatness....it's not production...just a snake eating itself.)

As a photographer that makes anywhere between $500 - $15000+ USD per shoot, I'm totally against SOPA. There are already laws in place to prevent theft of my work. If someone steals it, I have attorneys to deal with that.

SOPA is the most fucked up idea that anyone has ever come up with. It's nothing but an excuse to increase govt control on the internet. If it passes, I'll destroy my camera and never take another picture.

Another clever idea from the so called land of the "free". I agree, move it to a more free country such as the UK. I believe the US is one of the few countries looking at trying to take control of the Internet.

Ahwell, less business for american ICT firms, more for the rest of the world!

DoomsDayAlpaca saidfor the love of fuck, why do you think the Net Neutrality folks were fighting so hard? And yet you laughed at them as "liberal communist wanting to control the market"

What has the free market gotten you? Corporations writing legislation that's biting you in the ass. Too bad you were to busy bashing Net Neutrality huh?

This has never been about net neutrality - which I think is a basic issue of property rights (which frankly requires a special kind of stupid to believe so) - where competition negates the need for the legislation. This is completely different - please at least take time to understand the legislation given that sites become responsible for the content created by others and would be shut down for it - guilty until proven innocent.

Again, if what it takes is for you to blame conservatives then so be it. This legislation must be crushed or else sites like RealJock will quickly disappear or become unrecognizable. I should also point out that nearly all commercial regulations are written in part by lobbyists of specific corporate groups but you seem to again confuse corporatism/crony capitalism by painting far too wide a brush.

"if SOPA passes, EVERY. SINGLE. POST. would need to be reviewed for copyright compliance before it could make it to the live site. That would dramatically slow down updates and discussion, and the additional staff required would completely drain a site's financial resources."

Yes, it would. So entrepreneurs better figure out how to comply and still make money - cause this calls for a sudden evolution in strategy. Whoever figures it out slower will be a casualty of evolution.

As far as being held responsible for what someone posts on your site, why not, if one's business is running a site?